Scottish Human Rights Law Group

This was an action for recovery of possession of a house from a tenant and party litigant, who had been convicted of breaching an anti social behaviour order obtained by the council on grounds of his anti social behaviour and sentenced to a period of imprisonment after a trial before a sheriff.  

When the case for recovery of possession initially called before the same sheriff who had sentenced the individual she stated that she could not deal with the case because of her previous involvement with the criminal case but some months later when the case again called before the same sheriff she did not withdraw and concluded that the council A had made out proper grounds on which they could recover possession of the subjects and that it was reasonable to make the order. The tenant successfully appealed against this decision to the sheriff principal who held that that a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the sheriff had been biased against the tenant when she presided at the hearing of the case for recovery of the tenanted property against the particular background given that she had thought it appropriate to withdraw from the case when it first called before her but on its second calling before her had decided to preside and decide upon it. 

This is available to view here